I thought it was rude to do during a speech. That however does not invalidate the actual words that Wilson spoke. The president is lying or he is incompetent to hold this office. Joe Wilson should have called him a liar after the speech was over. If he was forced to apologize by the republican leadership instead of doing it out of a genuine and sincere shame of having the outburst, then shame on the republican leadership for being the spineless cowards they really are.

"The outburst was a political gift to the White House, underscoring Mr. Obama’s point that the health care debate has been plagued by incivility."

What liberal media?

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together know that Obama was making a speech to convince the voters that he's not lying, and that this kind of outburst, while quite rude, is exactly the opposite of what he wanted.

Obama was calling his opponents bickering liars before this happened, and changing statistics by the millions, so it's not like anyone thinks he's sincere when he complains about the uncivil environment Obama created (breaking a promise) or the charge of lying (which is accurate).

It was rude, but whether it's unacceptable is up to Joe Wilson's voters. No one, including phosphorous and FLS and Obama himself, thinks Joe Wilson was wrong. We all know he was right, and some are just fighting against that.

But I think he was wrong to express it, that way, at that moment. There is a certain level of respect and decorum you show any current or former president, and Wilson violated it.

That being said, oh, please, liberals, don’t pretend you are really offended. This is nothing compared to your treatment of Bush for the previous 8 years. No one is buying your crocodile outrage. I remember how liberals cheered when Jim Webb chewed out the president for asking him how his son was doing. I don’t recall any apology for that bit of petty nastiness.

And I think on balance the republicans come out ahead. I am with mickey kaus on this: he loses points for decorum, but gains for message. And it focuses people on the basic question: was the president lying at that moment.

By the way, doesn’t turning Joe Wilson into a tag here mean that we will get some crossing with the other Joe Wilson (Val Plame’s idiot husband).

Ann, while your Althouse Hillbillies will surely have a Pavlovian response and start foaming at the mouth at any mention of "illegal aliens" most Americans are now wising up to this being the same old political manipulation by some Republicans. It is satisfying to know there are good Republicans like John McCain who are willing to call out fellow conservatives who engage in such ugliness.

I believe Nathan Brittles said it best, "Never apologize. It's a sign of weakness". In any case, if Wilson believes it - and he should because it's true - he should have the courage of his convictions.

Phosphorous, what part of the bill verifies that people getting health insurance on the government dime are not illegal?

You know damn well that Obama and Pelosi STRIPPED THAT OUT in committee. You've been told that on this blog many times. So you know Joe Wilson's charge is completely accurate. Obama is lying when he says HR 3200 doesn't provide benefits to illegals. He knows it's a backwards mandate that is easy to pretend isn't there until someone calls you a liar.

I expect the bill will be changed, thanks entirely to Joe Wilson. When it is, you will pretend he was wrong, but you know in your heart that you're wrong.

Palin did the same thing with 'death panels'. The promises Obama made about denying hip replacements to old ladies, and the legislative sections about advising old ladies that they are getting close to dying and need to save everyone else's money... she stopped that stuff really quickly. Why did the democrats have to backtrack? Same reason they will probably have to put citizenship verification into the health care bill.

I'm pretty sure it was an "i'm sorry I was rude" (or "I'm sorry I got caught"/"I"m sorry you were offended"). That doesn't mean he still doesn't think O was full of it, which he seems to have said in the news. But even Obama's acceptance sounds obnoxious. I would have liked him better if he had said, "You know what? Joe disagrees with me and that's why we should have vigorous debate, blah, blah, blah". Instead, he sounds like a teacher or your dad or something. yuk.

"Again, CHOOSE. Was the outburst unprecedented, or was it business as usual? was Joe a folk hero, or just another shrieking partisan?

Did a democartic congressman ever personally insult Bush the Mighty during an address to Congress?"

This just plain doesn't make any sense.

It has to be unprecedented for Joe Wilson to have a point? He was rude and he was brave... at the same time. It was far less offensive than the democrats letting code pink into the SOTU addresses, but it was still rude. It was intelligent and correct and made a huge impact on the debate, too. Rather unlike the booing and hissing the democrats have used against Bush.

And Reid called Bush a 'loser' in front of school kids. Joe Wilson called Obama a liar to his face.

"There were only two options: Obama accepts the apology, or he doesn't. "This is really stupid, man. Of course Obama could have accepted the apology in a million ways, and instead of being classy about it, was a dick. Obama's the guy who started calling people liars. Joe Wilson lost it after OBama kept demonizing and lying and attacking. Obama could have done a much more intelligent job... there were more than 2 possibilities.

It feels like you're trying some oddball sophistry. Kinda like that death panel thing. I point out that it's a claim that could be materialized in many ways, and your objection to that is that you can't debunk the whole death panel point by debunking one example of it. Yeah, exactly.

Let's just stop making this democrats versus republicans. It's stupid. It's good people versus Obama.

The very idea of a typical white man dissing the Obama the Great is too good of a mini-martyrdom to give away by accepting his apology. The machine of racial grievance rolls along inside the minority community. No one else before Wilson has had balls enough to publicly speak back to Obama The Great in person before. Even Palin phones hers in over FaceBook. I hope Wilson is in a safe district and has no sex scandals handy.

The bill says “no illegal aliens” but all attempts to put anything in there enforcing it have been blocked. A proclamation without enforcement is pointless. You might as well cite the papal bull against the comet—it was equally effective, and equally bull.

And before you declare it a lie again, explain this to me: what in the law will actually prevent illegal aliens from enrolling? Background checks? ID checks? Anything? Until and unless you can answer that question, I would be careful whom you call a liar.

Maybe it would be incorrect to call it a lie. Maybe the better way to say it is that he “pulled a Clinton”—as in a Bill Clinton. Its not technically a lie to say that illegal aliens aren’t covered, but it is so misleading that it might as well be, just as it wasn’t technically a lie to say Bill didn’t inhale or that he slept with monica but didn’t impale. Nor is it technically a lie to say that no federal money will go to abortion, while you are forced to buy insurance that will be required to pay for abortions. Nor is it technically a lie to say that you won’t be forced to take government coverage, when the obvious result of their plan would be to encourage businesses to do away with their insurance plans and throw you onto the public option. You get the idea.

It’s 1/6 of our economy and our president can’t be straight with us. Ever wonder why?

But then you can’t be straight with us either, killing straw men left and right.

Ah, and here is an example. This is you, allegedly responding to me:

> Was the outburst unprecedented, or was it business as usual?

With what words did I say it was unprecedented? I said it was wrong, which is a slightly different issue. So you killed a straw man, there. Is that because you are dishonest or merely stupid?

> Did a democartic congressman ever personally insult Bush the Mighty during an address to Congress?

Wilson didn’t personally insult obama. He stated that his words were a lie. You do understand the difference, right? Against decorum, but not a personal insult.

From the article: Americans, [Obama] said, "are turned off when they see people using wild accusations, false claims, name calling, sharply ideological approaches to solving problems. They want pragmatism." (my emphasis)

Who could disagree with that?

Unfortunately I do not think that the words that come out of Obama's mouth have any practical meaning.

I am not worried that Obama is a god-king whom nobody dares disobey. I am happy that he cannot manage his way out of a wet paper bag.

I understand that voter sentiment is against a government takeover of health. I further understand that conservative Democrats won't vote for a government takeover of health because local voters in their states and districts oppose it.

"I am not worried that Obama is a god-king whom nobody dares disobey. I am happy that he cannot manage his way out of a wet paper bag."

But then why do you constantly accuse "libs" of worshipping Obama? soem of the harsjest, non-whackjob criticism of Obama comes from the left, who are more and more unhappy with his handling of healthcare.

This constant refrain of "Obama is the messiah" is bullshit, by your own admissison: congress was much more deferential to Bush, who got everything he wanted, no questiomns asked.

There were only two options: Obama accepts the apology, or he doesn't.

It always sounds obnoxious and stuffy when you say “I accept your apology”. You are missing the third option, which is “there is nothing to forgive”. Or “don’t mention it, entirely unnecessary for your to apologize”.

Given how brutally inefficient Cash for Clunkers has been, his claim that the gov't can manage insurance with less overhead (even if one ignores that profit ISN'T overhead) is a lie of the highest order.

Obama called Palin a liar, and called all opposition bickering liars opposed to all reform, in spite of their counter reform proposals. Obama was particularly aggressive and nasty. That's OK though.

Joe Wilson heard another lie, and was caught up in Obama's spirit of incivility and called Obama a liar, and admitted it was really rude and apologized. This is not OK.

The difference? Obama has the podium? If the problem was that Joe Wilson spoke up when he was supposed to be quiet, then most people don't really care. If the problem is that Joe Wilson's language was way too rude and harsh, then of course, Obama more harsh and ruder language is a bigger problem. Except for that magic (D).

At least 15 news sites and blogs: that's what I read every morning. Since I was 17 I began reading at least the 3 papers my father subscribed to every morning. God bless the internet!

While I certainly have my strong opinions on many issues and am no better than anyone else, I usually have a better-than-average grasp of the actual facts associated with the issues as well as enough history from the 4 last decades behind me to put most issues into some realistic and probable perspective.

Because of my reputation among my friends and colleagues over the year as someone "informed" and able to "sort it out", I was asked 11 years ago by several friends and couples to have a dinner party where I could answer questions regarding upcoming elections. I first told the group "I can't tell anyone how to vote", but they asked for my so-called "expertise" on the issues of the upcoming election.

The group started with a dinner hosted by the 7. This past (Nov 2008) election, we had 160+ people at a local University (not sponsored by the U - we all paid for it to be catered). While it began 11 years ago all friends who were all conservative, we now have a "panel" of 4 of us,self-described as "conservative" (me), "libertarian", "moderate", and "liberal". We sit at a table up front, answer questions, engage each other spiritedly, and then end with our recommendations summarized at the end.

It's a fun 2 1/2 hours, and the only rule, besides being willing to be told one of us is going on too long, is to be civil and as gracious as possible. All of us are friends who enjoy the give and take, and this year, all 4 of us will spend the morning of our next meeting together to discuss additional social activities that we all partake in. It is possible for us "all to get along".

I am an actual constituent of Joe Wilson. I think what he did was incredibly childish and stupid. Overall it's going to help Obama, not hurt him.

I'm not in SC right now, but unless I miss my guess, the "district" will not find Joe's impulsiveness heroic. Of course the district has no views, but its majority of conservatives won't see this as the coolest thing Joe Wilson ever did.

American politics is too civil. Not only do we need the equivalent of "Questions to the Prime Minister" with all the shouting and cat calling, but an occasion fist fight on the floor of the house of senate.

I also have the impression Congress in the early years of this country was far more uncivil. Much worse has been endured.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that a political culture of regular interjections and denunciations like last night's would produce a better society. But then I'm not [yet] convinced that this country is creeping inexorably towards fascism either.

I think Joe Wilson felt that he and his constituents were being slighted and demonized. I think he got mad enough that he lost his sense of decorum and said what he said.

I think he was immediately abashed at having indulged himself in that manner, which drew more attention to himself than to the fact that the President had unfairly painted his constituents' real concerns as "lying" and "bickering."

So Wilson apologized for his behavior. He in no way apologized for the substance of his words, but instead for having expressed them in such a manner and at such a time and place.

I believe Wilson was honorable and right in apologizing, and I can also easily forgive him his frustrated outburst, because I too would be outraged if I had to sit and listen to the President's mean-spirited dismissal of what are legitimate concerns over his health care plan.

This is hilarious: Ann, while your Althouse Hillbillies will surely have a Pavlovian response and start foaming at the mouth at any mention of "illegal aliens" most Americans are now wising up to this being the same old political manipulation by some Republicans. It is satisfying to know there are good Republicans like John McCain who are willing to call out fellow conservatives who engage in such ugliness.

It's also sad, because one of McCain's advisors was a former cabinet-level official of the Mexican government. To the Dems (including their concern trolls) and to corrupt Republicans like McCain and that ilk, that's no big deal. However, to patriotic Americans it is. That advisor clearly has divided loyalties, and what he and McCain pushed would have hurt the U.S. at the same time as it helped Mexico.

I repeatedly tried to get people to go "cross-examine" McCain over this issue, but no one would do it even after Malkin suggested the same.

And, it's because no one would do that or would ask good questions at the meetings during August that what Wilson did is highly welcome in the same way that a HailMary pass can be highly welcome.

Those of you "Althouse Hillbillies" who care about our laws should ask yourselves why your leaders - such as Glenn Reynolds - weren't urging you to ask questions like these, but were instead simply telling you to go out and throw tantrums.

He's not GOD OF THE REPUBLICANS just because he is not a fan of child raping tax evading vote stealing ACORN or whatever the liberals are up to these days.

I wish he was, because he's nowhere near as bad as the GOP tends to be.

How many people groaned when they saw Mccain condemn Wilson? He could have hurt himself running so fast for the cameras. That guy really would have set back the GOP permanently. Of Obama breaks the entitlement system by pushing it too far past the limit, then maybe Althouse's vote will one day seem inspired.

Is there any doubt that Obama a world class liar? Didnt watch the speech because I don't have a TV--but yesterday morning when I got up there were 47 million americans without health insurance--this morning, I find its only 30 (gee--do ya think that this was Obama's way of trying to make the illegal aliens issue go away?)

So as far as I can gather the Rush-bot theory here is that since illegal immigrants will still be able to walk into hospitals and get charity care LIKE THEY ARE ABLE TO DO TODAY after a reform bill passes, that Obama is lying.

It wouldn't at all be that Republicans are exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment and trying to burnish a public image of Obama as a socialist illegal-mexican coddler, for their own political gain. Never in a million years, right?

Joe Wilson is a rube that probably smokes cuban cigars while banging hookers. Hopefully the $500,000 that his dem challenger raised in the last 24 hours off of his dumb ass behavior will send him back to the private sector. There's a golf course in Union, S.C. that needs a new manager.

Montagne -- I love the snide insinuation that your opponents cannot think for themselves. That'll get you far.

The distinction is that illegal immigrants will be able to get all the free health care that everyone else must suffer through shortages and rationing to get. The non-bill will expand what illegal aliens can get.

Also, your apparent belief that it is only this issue that keeps the non-bill from becoming law is so embarrassingly quaint as to be charming.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the fundamental difference between now and then (after ObamaCare) is that today illegal aliens have to clog our emergency rooms rather than our doctor's offices. When we have socialized medicine there will be no stopping illegal aliens from getting the same all-around shitty care that the rest of us receive.

I'm a pretty die hard Republican, but I have to admit the disruption bothered me. I don't think we should be that kind of country.

But sadly we are, and we have been for quite awhile as the newly circulating clips of Democrats disrupting Bush speeches shows.

I don't want to use Alinsky tactics. I don't want to climb down into the gutter, but this is reality. This is where we are and who we are, and we don't get any points for playing by nice guy rules while the libs are playing by Rules for Radicals.

The liberals started this war with eight years of Bush=Hitler. We're fighting back now and we aren't going to stop.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report in August to little media fanfare that said:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.

I get it Roger... but I don't care. I said before that the health care reform is not an omnibus for everything you think is wrong in the country. With or without reform, there is still the problem of 16 million illegal immigrants getting health care... because they work in our fields, and we don't let people die by the side of the road. Right? Maybe you do.

So again, the existence of 16 million illegal immigrants is a fact whether or not insurance is involved. And it's being paid for either way.

To say that reform is designed as a trojan horse to give away lots of free stuff to illegal immigrants, though, is pure horseshit and typical political hackery from republicans. Who turn a blind eye to illegal immigration when it suits them and stoke hatred when it suits them.

monty--you avoided a straight forward question: how did the number of 47 million suddenly shrink to 30 million--without researching it, I suspect I can find where the the president has previously cited 47 Million--and why, do you ask, would he want to undercount? because the original count included illegals to inflate the number and it probably isnt playing well with focus groups and he'd like to take that issue off the table.

so did Obama lie when he used the census number, or did he lie when he used 30 million. Clearly one of them is a lie.

Monty - as long as we're playing that game, I would suggest that there 1M without insurance. Surely we don't have to remake 17% of the country's economy because 1M people (.33%) don't have insurance, right?

Now to be fair to Obama--a whole lot of people including Huckabee have cited the phrase "40 some odd million AMERICANS as gospel.--see for example the president's recent NYT op ed and his july 22 presser. the 47 million clearly includes illegals who are not citizens. If now mr obama wants to say there are 30 million AMERICAN CITIZENS without health insurance, he is closer to the truth (but the figure still includes those who voluntarily pay for health care out of pocket or simply opt out of insurance for whatever reason.)

No lie. "46 million people in america without insurance." "30 million american citizens without insurance." Lie is where?

What he said was "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.".

Had he said "there are 30 million Americans without insurance", that would have been true. But he said there are 30 million who cannot get coverage, and that's a bald-faced lie. That 30 million includes millions who are eligible for existing government programs but haven't applied, another ten to twenty million who can afford coverage but would rather spend their money on other things.

Dark Eden said:"I'm a pretty die hard Republican, but I have to admit the disruption bothered me. I don't think we should be that kind of country."

Console yourself with the fact that it is better for men to be fighting with words than with weapons. Which is why a loyal opposition needs a voice. And why freedom of expression is such a cherished right.

We have peaceful party transitions because the losing side believes they lost in a fair fight. Note how the perception of unfairness in the 2000 election haunted Bush through both his terms, and generated a lot of ill will.

If O rams through bills and the opposition feels they were sidelined, moderates like Ms. Althouse will be irked, and the less moderate types are probably going to be more than irked. And heaven forbid people start to lose faith in the fairness of our electoral process. The growing suspicion due to the Acorn voter fraud is a disturbing under current. But that's another topic.

Wilson appears to be correct as the Dems claim they are closing loopholes that would have allowed illegals to purchase health insurance through the exchange system as proof of citizenship is not required to sign up.

He was wrong to make the outburst during the presidents speech. I am glad he apologized. Proper discourse is important and allowing the president to make his points without interruptions or comments is a good tradition.

I just wish the Dems had felt that way during GWB. Booing during the state of the union and then no apology? Very bad taste. I assume the people upset at Joe Willison also commended the dems for those boos? No? Why not?

It matters less what is in the bill right now than what is in the bill when/if it is signed by Obama.

The Democrat leadership wants to get something, anything, passed right now because they plan to use reconciliation to ensure the key points of their socialized medicine plan is put back into the bill before it goes to Obama for his signature.

They know the sycophantic MSM will not tell us what is going on and that most Americans will not understand the process well enough to see what they are up to.

And further, whatever they don't get signed into law via the bill will be added in - and then some - by the army of Czarist bureaucrats that create and execute regulation.

What the Democrats are doing is nothing short of treason in the "the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery" sense.

As noted, the MSM has conveniently forgotten the previous Democrat, er, irrational exuberances at Presidential Addresses or when they themselves were addressing students.

And, so, Congressman Joe Wilson was made to apologize today by the Republicans.

OK, three cheers for decorum, but my apology would’ve read or sounded something like this:

“Arguably, my remark last night at the Presidential address was in poor taste. Republicans should not act like Democrats at Presidential Addresses when the President is a member of the other party, specifically like the time numerous Democrats booed then President Bush at his 2005 state of The Union Address. I apologize to anyone who was offended.”

The Republicans are too dumb or insecure to do anything like that, of course.

Methadras said... I thought it was rude to do during a speech. That however does not invalidate the actual words that Wilson spoke. The president is lying or he is incompetent to hold this office. Joe Wilson should have called him a liar after the speech was over.

Agree. And you can count many instances of the progressive Jewish media studiously ignoring instances of Congress critters on the House or Senate floor rising to accuse Bush of being like Hitler or Pol Pot. Of "lying" on WMD, the Plame Affair the media pumped relentlessly. Of Teddy Kennedy roaring that Bush & Rove were liars who got us into Iraq by a "conspiracy hatched in Texas".

Not to mention even more deranged slurs that the likes of Kucinich, Boxer, Conyers, Lee, Frank, Waxman, Nadler, and Waters regularly spew.

The apology for Pelosi publicly accusing the career public servants in the CIA of being "liars" for not briefing her when the documents show 20 times?? Has that liar! liar! apology come?

**************Remember what Wilson reacted to was Obama's partisan attack on those in the opposition spreading "Myths and Lies".

And Wilson may be factually correct. Are or are not illegals and their spawn going to have their healthcare bills paid for by taxpayers after Obamacare passes?? (if it does). There isn't a person out there that doesn't think some pregnant Mexican walking out of the desert will not get free prenatal childbirth services, or that a Mexican drug dealer shot by another drug dealer will not get free deluxe "cost is no consideration care" every bit comparable to an insured American. Better actually, considering their will be no co-pay or dunning bills and insurance company conflicts with paying harassing the illegal recipient for years.

Oh, and a bit of advice for docrinaire "Freedom-Lovers" attempting to minimize insurance healthcare woes in America ...as "only" 30 million once you exclude the illegals...

The numbers and stats are far, far worse.

Thus they can have ideological fealty to what Reagan said 30 years ago about American healthcare being the best in the world with no changes needed except lower taxes on doctors, Big Pharma execs, nursing home owners, etc. - to free up the genius of the profit motive. As he kicked the can down the road and all his successors did as the problems worsened until now..

(Though Reagan was 180 out from what Nixon said about the gathering healthcare crisis).

The actual numbers are far worse, as I say.

Its 32 million Americans with another 5 million expected to join this year as COBRA expires or they can't afford it. It's another 48 million who are called "seriously underinsured" and at risk of medical bill created bankruptcy if they or a family member suffers a major prolonged illness or major accident with prolonged dehabilitation or recovery.

And the numbers affected go up further when you add:

22 million Americans now dependent on an insolvent Medicare system now 37 trillion in the red with unfunded fiture obligations.16 million illegals and their dependent spawn under 18 years old not covered by free state "children's insurance".8 million children now insured by States that are billions of dollars in the red and questioning free medical care outside emergencies for those kids.

48 million uninsured.78 million underinsured or in systems threatened with insolvency.

Over 1 in 3 Americans.

Add that you have another 21 million affected by immediate family being in a situation where some members are covered "Kids Care", while others are not the kids working parents, or one parent barred by a pre-existing condition.And tens of millions more that have suffered personal anguish or financial loss trying to help uninsured relatives - mildly disabled adults who cannot work full time, uninsured friends, church members beggared by medical bills...

And tens of millions more that greatly fear their job and family's healthcare may disappear the next week they show up at work and get the bad news...

Contrast that with other advanced nations. What Americans spend a major part of their lives suffering from and worrying about simply isn't part of those people in other countries existence. It is amazing to them that we put up with it.It is amazing to them to hear of the paperwork Americans spend - and new right-wing proposals for "personal medical savings accounts" that require every expense be itemized and justified in pages of paperwork sent on tax returned to newly hired IRS agents and personal lawyers and accountants..

====================In hindsight, does anyone think that it would have probably been a better idea for Bush to spend a trillion dollars and 6 years fixing our healthcare mess than in spending 6 years and a trillion on "building a better place for the noble Freedom-Loving!!! Iraqi people" or foisting an unfunded premium-price free drugs for seniors program on us?

As for the "civility" issue... I swear we've become swooning Victorians.

The good old days of civil discourse never existed. They simply never did. It's a fantasy.

We've become incredibly uptight and frankly, incredibly prudish.

As for what level of rowdy discourse is appropriate... no matter what the level of civility there will always be someone who thinks it should be more civil and that the rudeness was off-putting. Each of us has a point where we go from cheering to cringing and it is *not* going to be in the same place for anyone. So what do we do? Rush to the camera like McCain did and spend our time acting like a Victorian matron all fluttery over the young buck's scandalous outburst?

"In hindsight, does anyone think that it would have probably been a better idea for Bush to spend a trillion dollars and 6 years fixing our healthcare mess than in spending 6 years and a trillion on "building a better place for the noble Freedom-Loving!!! Iraqi people" or foisting an unfunded premium-price free drugs for seniors program on us?"

No.

Firstly, Iraq was not something that could be ignored. It had to be resolved one way or another.

Secondly, even had Iraq been something that could be ignored any attempt by Bush to reform health care would have been opposed and vilified and obstructed just *exactly* like his efforts to do something about Social Security were obstructed and his ideas to enact some sort of legal worker status other than citizenship or another open ended amnesty for illegals was portrayed as the worst sort of racist anti-immigrant hate and was obstructed.

What Bush did, such as the aid to Africa and AIDS stuff... he did by stealth. If it never came up on anyone's radar, it could be done, but that was the only way.

Which makes the charges that people are opposing Obama for NO REASON other than to oppose him sort of... ironic.

Something I've noticed a *lot* is that what the "right" is actually upset about is completely missed in favor of some other thing.

Say, Letterman makes a rape joke about Palin's daughter... it gets reported in the MSM as people upset about the slutty stewardess joke.

People think the "how can you help Dear Leader" lesson plans are beyond creepy and totally inappropriate and they are never mentioned in the news reports.

Palin says "death panels" referring to rationed care and it gets conflated with "end of life counseling."

People say that in a war we need to give an appearance of resolve and unity and it's presented as "don't disagree or dis the prez" when what people felt was treasonous were our elected officials and previously elected officials making world-wide public announcements (sometimes actually overseas) that the war was lost, that we could never ever win, that our soldiers were terrifying the population or had murdered in cold blood or that the temporary leader of the government we were trying to establish was a "puppet" of the US government... and that somehow none of these statements could ever possibly encourage the enemy, lengthen hostilities, discourage those Iraqis who might come over to our side, or ever get US soldiers killed.

No, it was supposedly about BusHitler and other stupid name-calling.

And now, suddenly, we're not supposed to disagree with our President on purely domestic political issues.

> But when people show up armed to town hall meetings, conservatives always claim that they shouldn't be judged by the most extreme members of the party.

A study of violent incidents at the town hall meetings reveal that the violence has largely been done by pro-health-care demonstrators, not anti. Take a case in point, the handicapped guy who got attacked by union thugs. But don’t let the facts get in the way of the narrative.

> "keeping the government out of their medicare",

Whom or what are you presuming to quote?

> And when Glenn Beck fights back tears as he calls Obama a communist, or Rush Limbaugh bounces up and down at the CPAC, we are told that they don't represent the real republicans.

And when Michael Moore declares himself a communist, when Obama hires a green jobs czar who is a communist, truther, generalized lefty nutbag...

> And now, when Joe Wilson acts like a loutish townhaller, rather than a congressman, we are told that HE doesn't represent the "real republicans"?

I never said he was not a real republican. I just criticized his lack of decorum and respect for the office. But talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill, one guy can sit quietly while the president lies and calls everyone else liars, and suddenly all republicans are kooks.

> So it is simply "fact" now that Obama lied?

Well, since you never rose to my challenge, I guess you have answered the question for us. Put up or shut up. Show me how the ban on illegal aliens is going to be enforced. Because you ban illegal immigration all day long, but if you don’t enforce the ban, it won’t stop.

> I freely admit this

So what were your previous denials then? Lies, apparently.

> It used to be called "treason",

The actual ratio of democratic claims that they are being accused of treason to actual accusations of treason is about 1,000,000 to 1. I’m not saying it never happened, but it was extremely rare. On the other hand, spurious claims that one’s patriotism is being challenged were ubiquitous.

The fact you are having so much trouble coming up with even one real example of it is because of that reality. You can’t sort out all the bullshit examples from the real ones. As Frank J. Flemming once wrote, when a liberal says “you are questioning my patriotism,” what he really means is that “your legitimate attacks… are making me question my patriotism.” (paraphrase)

new right-wing proposals for "personal medical savings accounts" that require every expense be itemized and justified in pages of paperwork sent on tax returned to newly hired IRS agents and personal lawyers and accountants..

I have resisted getting one of these for just that reason (plus –although they may have changed this now – at first you had to be able to use all the money within that year. I actually put money aside for dental into a personal savings account, because the other way sounds like a hassle). I would be happy if they made that easier to use without requiring major receipts. Or, they could just allow you to claim medical expenses on your tax form, like you do charitable ones. They could even allow a 200-300 dollar expected amount that you don’t have to itemize for. That is easily fixable.

The benefit (as I understand it) of itemizing the bills is so that every one sees just how much they are paying for what... when it's all bundled together there isn't accountability. When it's itemized a person can look at it and go, "$200 for laundry? I was only in the hospital overnight!"

Since we're trying to ferret out waste and reduce fraud it helps to know what the charges actually are.